IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 6, 2009
JUDY A. MCDERMOTT, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER GENERAL, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Illston United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 8 DISCOVERY REQUEST WITHOUT PREJUDICE 9 [Docket No. 73]
Plaintiff has recently filed a discovery motion. It appears that plaintiff filed this request without first meeting and conferring with opposing counsel. Local Civil Rule 37-1 provides that the Court "will not entertain a request or a motion to resolve a disclosure or discovery dispute unless, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37, counsel have previously conferred for the purpose of attempting to resolve all disputed issues." See Civ. Local R. 37. To "'meet and confer' or 'confer' means to communicate directly and discuss in good faith the issue(s) required under the particular Rule or order . . . . [S]uch communication may take place by telephone. The mere sending of a written, electronic, or voice-mail communication, however, does not satisfy a requirement to 'meet and confer' or to 'confer.' Rather, this requirement can be satisfied only through direct dialogue and discussion -- either in a face to face meeting or in a telephone conversation." See Civ. Local R. 1-5(n) (emphasis added). Plaintiff is also notified that per this Court's Standing Order, discovery disputes are not noticed for oral argument. Accordingly, plaintiff's discovery request [Docket No. 73] is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff may renew her request if, after complying with the meet and confer requirement, she is unable to resolve this matter with opposing counsel.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.